GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1068759806


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] BBC, the Celt Map, and Some Rethinking
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:43:26 EST


In a message dated 11/13/2003 3:26:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

> Since the Celtic culture only became identifiably distinct around
> 1000-800BC, it isn't correct to say R1b is of original Celtic stock. As John
> pointed out recently, the fact that Celtic culture is thought to have begun
> in central or even eastern Europe, seems to contradict R1b being exclusive
> to Celticness. Just when it was starting to clear up, it gets muddy again.
>
>

Shane:

It sure is getting muddy. See my last post on this subject in reply to Mr.
Faux. I think you are making a fundamental error-: what is called "Celtic"
could just as well be called anything else. We are talking about tiime
frames of millennia. What do you think "American Culture" will be known as
5-10,000 years from now, if it is recalled at all? I think your "operable phrase"
is "became identifiable". Genes don't change (mutations excluded!), but
names do.
Len


This thread: